Talk:Human-Borg history
Conflict or Conflicts I'm confused here- the title seems to suggest a single, continuous conflict spanning centuries- but the Borg and the Federation were not engaged in combat continuously since 2063. The "2153 incident" doesn't even involve the Federation, but it is included here. An incident here and incident there does not make for a continuous conflict. The title should probably be "Human-Borg history" since that's really who it involves, if we want an article like this.--31dot 02:31, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :I see no problem with changing to that title, since that seems to be the direction I'm going with this article. Feel free. --Nero210 02:45, June 29, 2010 (UTC) From Voyager-Borg conflict References Missing references: * * * * Necessity of this Page I know I'm hardly one to talk considering the hits I took when I wrote the Voyager-Kazon conflict article, but in this case I don't think we need this particular article. Voyager's dealings with the Borg could be taken as an extension of the conflict the Federation already had with the Borg since and as such I think this article would be better suited in that manner. --Nero210 19:13, June 26, 2010 (UTC) :I would tend to agree, if we're going to have this, it should cover all Federation-Borg conflicts. - 13:09, June 27, 2010 (UTC) ::This is about Voyager s conflict while it is lost in the Delta Quadrant not the Federation's conflict. Make a new page called Federation-Borg conflict.--TyphussJediVader 13:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Calm down Mr. Defensive. Voyager was just another front in the Federation's conflict with the Borg. Voyager didn't loose its status as a Federation ship when it got stuck in the Delta Quadrant, therefore having this article cover the entire Federation-Borg conflict is appropriate. Voyager would have a pretty big section however. --Nero210 16:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Borg not Borgs.--TyphussJediVader 22:43, June 27, 2010 (UTC) :::If Nero wants to continue his crusade to rework all Voyager articles, I would suggest he make a mock-up of the proposed Federation-Borg Conflict page as a sub-page to his user profile and have a link here so that everyone can vet it before it is posted for all to see. I like your gumption, but you are coming off as pretty arrogant that "your way is the best way." Let us all help and it will be the best piece of work that can be put on here (that goes for all articles).--Obey the Fist!! 15:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :Considering that his page is just a brief of "Scorpion" (I & II) right now, I don't think a user subpage would be needed. Simply adding the non-''Voyager'' info to the article, which would all be before the current stuff, should be enough to see if that works. Also, I have no idea what the "Borg not Borgs" comment means. - 16:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Merge I put this up for a merge with Human-Borg history, since I agree that having a single page to cover (and point to more in depth articles) is a good idea, but I don't think we need two pages to do that. - 04:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :Support. --Nero210 05:30, June 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Support. Borgs not Bjorgs--Obey the Fist!! 12:40, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm not sold on the merge. This isn't part of a Human-Borg conflict this is a Federation-Borg conflict and the Human-Borg conflict developed into the Federation-Borg conflict. What's missing from this article is more information on the conflict between Voyager itself and the Borg. — Morder (talk) 03:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC) I would say your first sentence is also the very reason for the merge. Either way, this seems more like an essay on Seven of Nine then about anything else at this moment. - 22:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :::My first sentence being that I'm not sold on the merge?! :) Agreed on what it currently is which is why it should probably just get a pna-inaccurate for now. If another page develops into a general "Borg-everybody conflict" then we can merge them all. Until they do this particular page should deal with voyager and the borg and not doesn't belong on human-borg history, yet. — Morder (talk) 13:11, July 1, 2010 (UTC) As the originator of this article, although this is an open article i would like to say my sole intention at first of creating this article was to begin a detail analysis into the Borg-Voyager relationship and a Borg-federation conflict rather then a Borg-human conflict, thank you.-Four of Five ::::Keep in mind that this site is not for original research or analysis of aspects of Star Trek. We are only here to document either in-universe aspects of the Star Trek universe or production information. If you simply want to have the information in one place, that is fine, as people seem to agree on that, but it shouldn't be as any sort of research.--31dot 14:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC) I understand, i was not trying to imply for research into the subject, i was simply trying to encourage more contribution into the field, thank you. --Four of Five :::::If I could through my two cents in here? I support merge idea for the reason that I personally do not feel that an article on Voyager's encounters with the Borg warrant a separate page when all the information could be readily inserted into the Human-Borg conflict article. Perhaps having its own section in that article would be more fitting? -- TrekFan Talk 22:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Sidebar Cleanup Once this page get's moved, I would suggest a look at the sidebar. There have to be losses for Voyager as crewmen and women were assimiliated or killed during the conflicts with the Borg. Also, am I mistaken that Voyager was not the only one to fight the Borg? Didn't they enlist other races help?--Obey the Fist!! 12:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC) They did indeed, do u remember Unimatrix zero. hi Im the person who created Voyager-Borg conflict so if any discussions or decisions are made concerning the article please contact me about it, thanks:) :While we thank you for creating the article, oh unnamed contributor from beyond the stars, I would like to remind you that this is a wiki and therefore, can be edited by anyone at any time. I would say that you can track ALL of your created pages just as you found this one.--Obey the Fist!! 14:13, June 29, 2010 (UTC) However I would like editors to help me assimilate unwritten information into the article freely. --Four of Five 23:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)Four of Five From Federation-Borg War Merge Same reasons as Voyager-Borg conflict. - 06:23, May 12, 2011 (UTC) :I disagree with the merge. Each war on MA has a separate article even if its just a small blurb like the Tzenkethi war. Any conflicts prior to the war are listed separately. eg. Dominion cold war vs. hot war, Klingon cold war vs. hot war. The human-borg history article is more like a cold war article. It wasn't explicitly stated in dialogue that the Federation was at war with Borg until the Best of Both Worlds Part 1 Robert DeSoto 07:42, May 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Support merge. It was not one, continuous conflict, and we have articles on the battles already (Battle of Wolf 359 and Battle of Sector 001) which means that a summary of incidents between the UFP and the Borg should not be described as a war(which they aren't at the proposed merge target) --31dot 10:38, May 12, 2011 (UTC) :It was not a continuous conflict, nonetheless, it was still described as a war, on screen. It was stated by Hanson, Troi, Picard, and even Dr. Crusher who was opposed against using Hugh as a weapon from the start. It may not seem like a war considering how far apart the two powers are, but that is what's stated on screen. Should we ignore all that dialogue? In that case, the two other articles should be merged here, and this brought up to MA standards. - 23:14, May 12, 2011 (UTC) ::We don't have to ignore anything, but we also don't need to create new articles when we have perfectly good ones which cover the non-continuous events and one which summarizes all Human-Borg history already.--31dot 01:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :I initially disagreed with the merge because all the other Federation conflicts on MA were separated between pre-war conflicts (listed as cold war articles) and the actual hot war articles. But I suppose Voyager's conflict with the Borg could be included since it takes place after the war started in The Best of Both Worlds. And there has been no peace declared. The battle in ENT: Regeneration, I suppose could also be argued as an extension of the war since they were the drones from First Contact. The only section that is kinda iffy is the Hanson research expedition. That has nothing to do with the conflict but I guess it could thrown in the Prelude section if anything. But I think the title should preserve the fact that this was a war and not a bunch of random isolated clashes. VOY didn't really emphasize that fact since they just wanted to go home, but TNG made it very clear that it was considered a war. That's something that the existing MA articles don't really discuss, but I think it should Robert DeSoto 02:34, May 13, 2011 (UTC) "There's been no formal declaration of war." - Beverly Crusher, . - 06:27, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :"Not from us, but the Borg have declared their intention to assimilate us and our way of life." - Troi. Then the next scene, Crusher reluctantly concedes :"Yes yes, I know. We're at war." - Crusher. and btw, can you explain what is missing from the formatting? I tried reading the manual of style, I don't see anything that's obvious :Robert DeSoto 06:40, May 13, 2011 (UTC) ::Re your 2:34 post: If that's the case, (still not convinced) then the Human-Borg history article should simply be renamed to this through merging.--31dot 08:59, May 13, 2011 (UTC) Just because the crew of the Enterprise-D decided to proceed as if they were at war doesn't mean it was a one. That's like saying the Federation and the Cardassian Union were at war for the few days because Benjamin Maxwell and the crew of the USS Phoenix decided to act that way. It can be noted in the history article that members of Starfleet considered it a war, but without something to suggest there was a formal declaration, we shouldn't call it a war. Starfleet is not the Federation. - 19:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC) : Nobody in "The Wounded" ever stated "we are in a state of war", like it was said repeatedly in "The Best of Both Worlds" and "I, Borg". And Admiral Hanson (who also considered it a war) is not part of the Enterprise crew. In fact it was clearly stated in "The Wounded" that Maxwell brought the Federation to the "brink of war", meaning they are not yet at war. There was no formal declaration of war against the Dominion either. Starfleet wanted the element of surprise when they attacked Torros III so of course they are not going to give them a formal declaration so they have time to prepare their defenses. And only the DS9 crew and the Rotarran crew said they were at war. Maybe a couple other crews. But Starfleet and the Klingon Defense Force isnt the Federation. So are you gonna tell me the Dominion war isn't canon either? Maybe you should rewatch a few of these episodes. btw you still havent explained what I need to fix the formatting Robert DeSoto 06:20, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, nobody ever said there was a war going on in DS9 after "Call to Arms", you really got me there. What we do have on this "war" is one mention to a "state of war" while there's and incursion going on in , something we know doesn't mean there's a W'''ar going on, since it happens every few years anyway, like , , , , , , etc. In , there is again only one reference, with Picard being called a "casualty of war", which again, is said during an incursion by a guy about to fight a battle, so what else is he suppose to call him? A casualty of a minor skirmish before what people will remember? Nothing there even comes close to suggesting there is more then the event going on right then, and we know from other episodes that the '''Federation never used the time after that to declare war on the Borg. They don't even use the word war for what happened, it's all "the Borg incident" and "the Borg scare". There are undeclared "wars" in the real world given more respect then that, like that little Vietnam "incident". Not calling something a war when it is one is like calling the War of 1812 a minor scuffle between the US and Brittan, which it actually was considering how it turned out, but it's still called a W'ar because it was one. In , which doesn't have a comma in it right on screen, we have a discussion about how to treat a captured member of a species known to be hostile. Riker wouldn't have to "..agree, we're at war.''" if there was an actual war going on. The whole discussion would be moot if there was. We do have the quote I mentioned above about there being no formal declaration, which closes the matter right there for the '''Federation, but since you can't accept that because no one here is capable of watching these episodes and coming to a different conclusion then you, we have Beverly's line that "I know, I know. We're at war." This is clearly her agreeing with the war and not her forgoing an argument because she's under orders from the captain who has chosen to act in that manner, right? Somebody should have taken Picard out back and shot him as a traitor when he let Hugh go unharmed, since they were at W'ar! Janeway too for that matter, since she did all that palling around with them in . In fact, after "I Borg" there isn't a single mention of any "'W'ar" with the Borg, or even a "war" for that matter. You would think there would be because the word war was thrown around a lot in those episodes, we even need a "Janeway-Chakotay War" page due to the dialog. Don't forget the "''Federation-Species 8472 War", since Janeway speaks for hundreds of planets on policy now. Sounds like there isn't a war going on with the Borg at all, just everybody else around them. All this is is some cyborgs that happen to show up every few years and try to assimilate Earth. Hell, the second time around it seems they only tried for Earth, and since everyone who's used the word war describing them is at least part Human, it would be more accurate to call this a '''Human-Borg War, since we're in the business of making things up now. As for the formatting, sulfur already did most of it, but this still needs links added since you mention a lot of things without one. - 07:28, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : I never said that nobody mentioned "war" after Call to Arms. I have no idea where you got that from. So a "state of war" is not really a war? Then what it is exactly? And I don't see how it happens every few years. The Wounded, The Die is Cast, The Enterprise Incident, they were brought to the brink of war, not an actual war. :You're right there is some debate between Crusher and the rest of the crew about whether or not they are at war. But in the end, the majority concluded that yes, they're at war. So we are just supposed to ignore that? So what if other episodes refer to it as the "Borg Incident"? You don't refer to 9/11 incident as the "war against terror", that doesn't meant it's not related to a greater conflict. :And yes, Picard was reprimanded by Admiral Nechayev for being a "traitor" as you would call it. She explicitly ordered him to take advantage of any future opportunities to destroy the Borg. Something that would be consistent with a state of war. :As for your last paragraph about Janeway-Chakotay war, I'm not even gonna bother. You're obviously losing it now. Robert DeSoto 15:03, May 18, 2011 (UTC) - definition number one - "...with or '''without' a real armed conflict''". There is no W'''ar here, never was, and you missed the point entirely. Picard ''isn't'' a traitor because there was no war. He just pissed off Nechayev, which is what he should be doing, since her job is to be wrong all the time. - 08:04, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::Even without looking at the potential semantic differences between wars and Wars, what still hasn't been answered is the question 31dot brought up a week ago: If, as even the introduction of this article admits, the whole period of contact between the Borg and individual member planets of the Federation is what is called the "Federation-Borg War", then why exactly is it necessary to have two articles about the same topic? Please explain, to convince me of not '''supporting this merge. -- Cid Highwind 08:52, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :@Archduk3 - I'm glad you looked it up. So even if there is no real conflict between the battle of Wolf 359 and the battle of Sector 0001, a state of war could exist, couldn't it? And I don't see what Nechayev did or said that was so wrong. Picard's duty is to defend the security of the Federation, not to wrestle with his conscience. Picard himself admitted that letting Hugh go may have been the wrong decision to make. We can debate this forever but the fact of the matter is, there is dialogue that specifically says the Federation is at war. There is nothing explicit that says there is no war. btw I like Nechayev. Shes a bitch but she gets shit done. Putting Jellico in charge of the Cardassian negotiations was a good move. But that's an entirely different topic. I just wanted to point out that she isn't always wrong. Robert DeSoto 05:47, May 21, 2011 (UTC) :@Cid Highwind - I said I'm no longer opposed to merging the articles. Only that I think the term war should be preserved. Robert DeSoto 05:47, May 21, 2011 (UTC) :::But if two articles are merged, it only sounds sensible to use the "more generic" title instead of the "more specific" one for the resulting article - especially if the specific title is also somewhat controversial. -- Cid Highwind 15:39, May 21, 2011 (UTC) :@Cid Highwind - I don't think human-borg history is a good title because it's inconsistent with other MA articles. If we have a human-borg history then why is there is no human-Klingon history, no human-Dominion history etc? Then you also have to have Klingon-Dominion history, Klingon-Romulan history etc. There would be no end. I think just having articles on the individual wars is good enough. As for the controversy, it was pretty explicit that the Federation was in a "state of war", in the Best of Both Worlds. There was no debate. As soon as Troi said it, Riker had no argument. The only controversy was whether the Federation was still at war in I Borg because Crusher had reservations. She eventually conceded they're at war but still objected to the plan because there are rules in war. If you listen to the debate again, it is a pretty convincing case that they were still at war. Whether or not you think its appropriate to use a free being to commit genocide is open to debate, but not the fact that they were at war. If you are still not convinced, watch the episode again and imagine they are talking about the United States and terrorism. Is the US constantly engaged in massive battles like in WW2? No. Was there a formal declaration of war? No. But I think most Americans would agree the US is at war with terrorists. Like the Borg, they've made their intentions clear to end the American way of life. Imagine if terrorists destroyed 39 American warships and almost landed troops in the American capital. Is there a single American that would not consider that an act of war? :::Yeah, and most of the rest of the world would agree that "War on Terror" is a pretty catchphrase for a number of police actions at best, and a shady euphemism at worst - but we're not talking about real-world politics here. :::One valid point regarding this so-called "Federation-Borg War" is that it is neither a "War", nor a single chain of events, nor something that involved the whole Federation - and, at the same time, that if the merge suggestion you no longer disagree with goes through, the merged article would no longer be one about just these 24th century Borg incursions and, as such, shouldn't have a title that concentrates on that. If this article gets merged to a bigger "history article", then the result should of course be called a "history article" - and if you don't like the "Human-Borg" part of it, you could start a discussion about that on the target page. :::If, however, you no longer want this article to be merged, there's still the issue of calling a non-war a "War" - why not try finding something that doesn't pretend to be an official title? For example, a purely descriptive title could simply be Borg incursions or, if necessary, qualified as Borg incursions (24th century), Borg incursions (Earth), Borg incursions (Federation space) etc. -- Cid Highwind 10:55, May 22, 2011 (UTC) First, the attempt to draw a parallel between the Borg and terrorists is ill informed at best, and once again completely ignores the fact that it was plainly stated there was "no formal declaration of war.". Second, as a US citizen, you can't have a War without a formal declaration from Congress. You can call it whatever the hell you want, but it isn't a War. At best, it will only ever be a war because everybody calls it that, and we know in Trek that everybody doesn't call the Borg incursions towards Earth a war. As for the "need" to create catch all conflict articles beyond the history article, why would we want an unnecessary step between Human-Borg history and articles like Battle of Wolf 359 that will only rehash information covered on the levels above and below it? Are we so bereft for articles that we need to outright duplicate information to create them? What would we gain with such half steps beyond a more complicated and difficult to follow web? - 08:39, May 23, 2011 (UTC) : There was no official declaration of war against the Dominion either. But "everybody" calls it a war so its I guess its ok. But its not ok for the war on terror? What about the Korean war? Vietnam? As a US citizen I guess you can't call it a war without Congressional approval eh? I'd love to see you tell some vets from Iraq that the US isnt really at war. Then watch them kick your ass LOL Robert DeSoto 04:10, June 11, 2011 (UTC) :::: Is it just me, or does it seem that the comparison with the US and the armed conflicts we've been in for the last decade is becoming a bit to personal for some. I also think its wise to not quote how most Americans would think or what some people might do because you simply do not know, and guess work is not helpful in a discussion. -- OvBacon(Talk) 05:40, June 11, 2011 (UTC) :I just restored the title back. Whatever your opinions are against calling this a war, the fact is, there is no explicit dialogue saying there isn't a war. And it has been stated explicitly more than once that a war exists. You can't pick and choose your own canon and ignore dialogue based on your own opinion. There is evidence for a war, there is none against. And interestingly enough, so far everyone at the trekbbs seems to agree with me. http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=143489 Robert DeSoto 04:39, June 16, 2011 (UTC) ..and I moved it back and locked it, because your opinion, wrong as it is, and trekbbs does not change MA policy and procedure. - 04:46, June 16, 2011 (UTC) :And who made you the judge of that? It's not just my opinion, its the opinion of the TNG crew which is stated with on screen dialogue. But no, you know better than the crew, ok fine. So I randomly ask a bunch of other Trek fans at the biggest available forum and they also all agree with the TNG crew. So let me ask you, what makes you think you know better than both the on screen characters and real life fans? Do you own this forum? Or is it cuz you have more edits than me? Look, I'm sorry I don't time to edit memory alpha 24/7 like you do. I have a life. But just cuz I'm not some loner living in my mama's basement doesn't mean my opinion is worth any less. Robert DeSoto 05:03, June 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::I have no doubt that you (Robert DeSoto) are as big a fan of star trek as we all are. And I can even understand that you could possibly get a little annoyed with some people from time to time, as MA editors can sometimes state their opinion a little firm or to blunt etc. But what I think you don't understand is that by attacking him or anyone else personally you loose all credibility. In a discussion like this its good to display you arguments and its even fine to add some additional arguments along the way... but to keep saying the same thing over and over and then resorting to unverifiable generalities like "most fans think this" or "the people of the US think this" etc etc, is not helping to make your point. By doing these things you make yourself an outcast that others rather not engage. I assume that in real life your a nice guy and are not an angry belligerent person, so be so kind to give the same respect to others as you would like to be given. It might be good to just take a week away from MA to let it cool and hopefully you can then see that under the belt attacks are unwanted, unacceptable and simply unnecessary -- OvBacon(Talk) 17:25, June 16, 2011 (UTC) :I don't have a problem with him being blunt. To be honest, he can make personal attacks as well, it doesn't bother me. I just think he's being arrogant and presumptuous when he prevents me from making changes on his own whim. And I don't see why I shouldn't speak out. As an admin, that makes him a bigger expert on Star Trek than me? Ok sure, if you say so. But saying "most fans think this" is not unverifiable. A majority of random respondents from the largest available Star Trek community seemed to agree with me. The TNG characters themselves agree with me. I don't see how one admin's opinion is more valid than both on screen characters and random real life fans. You're an admin too and you have to back up one of your boys, I understand that, and I don't hold anything against you for it. But I don't think I was being angry and belligerent. Did I bust his balls a little? yea probably lol. I'm sorry if it made him cry, but if I was being angry and belligerent, you'd know it. I ain't gonna stoop to that level tho. Clearly after his rant about the Janeway Chakotay war, I did more than enough damage haha Robert DeSoto 05:34, June 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Further comments not having to do with the contents of this article should be discussed elsewhere. OvBacon is not an admin, BTW.--31dot 11:57, June 25, 2011 (UTC) PNAs This article needs a lot of work, if not a complete rewrite. Half of it is a uncited and unformatted essay on Seven of Nine, the other half needs copyediting and links. There's also a few episodes that aren't yet covered, so that information also needs to be added. - 14:07, June 4, 2011 (UTC)